But what if the sides currently in control of Erfworld all subscribe to an evil ideaology? Than wouldn't the side overthrowing them be good?

Just because you fight an "evil side" does not automaticaly make you a "good side". A perfect example is WWII with Hitler and Stalin. Both human monsters that killed millions of their own people and tried to destroy each other. Evil often preys on itself.

Throwing around "good" and "evil" in a discussion always makes me uncomfortable. Applying these simplistic labels really clouds the issue. Some assume that any action performed in support of 'good' is itself 'good'.

People and nations are not 'good' or 'evil'. They are self-interested. Actions performed by these people, in their own interests or on behalf of their nation, can be acceptable or intolerable, and can benefit or harm their own cause and the causes of their allies and opponents.

War is initiated primarily over control of resources. Gold, oil, access to holy lands, better farmland, water, terrorists being sheltered, whatever - someone else has something you want, and you take it by force. Everything else is justification. Some of these wars are just, many, perhaps most, are not.

When judgment is clouded by 'righteousness', horrible things can happen. Conversely, when positive goals are supported by moral certainty, terrific obstacles can be overcome. But I'd claim there is no such thing as 'innately good' or 'inherently evil' in this world, and I don't see evidence of it in Erfworld either.

Throwing around "good" and "evil" in a discussion always makes me uncomfortable. Applying these simplistic labels really clouds the issue. Some assume that any action performed in support of 'good' is itself 'good'.

People and nations are not 'good' or 'evil'. They are self-interested. Actions performed by these people, in their own interests or on behalf of their nation, can be acceptable or intolerable, and can benefit or harm their own cause and the causes of their allies and opponents.

War is initiated primarily over control of resources. Gold, oil, access to holy lands, better farmland, water, terrorists being sheltered, whatever - someone else has something you want, and you take it by force. Everything else is justification. Some of these wars are just, many, perhaps most, are not.

When judgment is clouded by 'righteousness', horrible things can happen. Conversely, when positive goals are supported by moral certainty, terrific obstacles can be overcome. But I'd claim there is no such thing as 'innately good' or 'inherently evil' in this world, and I don't see evidence of it in Erfworld either.

Interesting.

From a certain point of view, someone could say that the rules governing Earth are a lot like the rules governing Erfworld... and that (if you were so inclined) Erfworld could be viewed as simply a metaphor or a mirror image of Earth... with any differences being rather small in the grand scheme of things.

Examples: Marbits are sort of cute; Marbits with axes charging at you: not cute. Children are kind of cute; Child-soldiers from the Congo with AK-47s aimed at you: not cute.

War is initiated primarily over control of resources. Gold, oil, access to holy lands, better farmland, water, terrorists being sheltered, whatever - someone else has something you want, and you take it by force. Everything else is justification. Some of these wars are just, many, perhaps most, are not.

Only in the same way as Thunderstorms are about water. You have to ignore the lightning for it to be true. And the lightning is just as dangerous.

From a certain point of view, someone could say that the rules governing Earth are a lot like the rules governing Erfworld... and that (if you were so inclined) Erfworld could be viewed as simply a metaphor or a mirror image of Earth... with any differences being rather small in the grand scheme of things.

Examples: Marbits are sort of cute; Marbits with axes charging at you: not cute. Children are kind of cute; Child-soldiers from the Congo with AK-47s aimed at you: not cute.

Of course, those child-soldiers were cheated out of the childhood billions of other children receive. Marbits have no other options.

From a certain point of view, someone could say that the rules governing Earth are a lot like the rules governing Erfworld... and that (if you were so inclined) Erfworld could be viewed as simply a metaphor or a mirror image of Earth... with any differences being rather small in the grand scheme of things.

Examples: Marbits are sort of cute; Marbits with axes charging at you: not cute. Children are kind of cute; Child-soldiers from the Congo with AK-47s aimed at you: not cute.

Of course, those child-soldiers were cheated out of the childhood billions of other children receive. Marbits have no other options.

Both are tragic, for completely different reasons.

I'd say for the same reason.

That's what Sizemore and Janis were talking about, and why the Hippiemancers provided the spell that summoned Parson. They want Erfworlders to have other options than being the equivalent of Congolese child-soldiers.

Good and evil are not absolutes. Good and evil are predominantly points of view. Every so oftain there is an act that can be considered true evil but usually, if you know the other persons reasons you can see that they're not evil at all just set in their own point of view.

I find the Good Vs. Evil alignment is good only for games with the mechanics for it. Like DnD where there's a lot of spells, classes, and such based off of alignment. You can find parallels between alignments and behavior, but they're just broad generalizations. Law vs. Chaos may be a bit more applicable though.

This conversation is unlikely to result in any kind of consensus. To quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.

I just think it's nice to be able to bounce ideas off of people, and to have people bounce ideas off of me, without any hard feelings involved.Heck... i could learn something

[Friendly Sarcasm]Learn something? Honest, mutual debate without someone getting offended? No Mods involved?! On the INTERNET?? Whatever you're smoking, where can I get me some? XD[/Sarcasm]

No, seriously, if you find such a site/forum/chatroom, send me a link ASAP.

_________________I am the Barbarian Gamer. I can roam. I can explore. I am free to make purchases or returns or forum posts of whatever I please. I'm here for the same reasons you are. One, this interests me. And two? I love Erfworld. May the Titans help me.

You know, he almost described the mental processes of a martial artist or veteran of foreign war. No matter the situation, they always know a) every possible exit, including windows, b) any potential weapons in the room, c) The exact distance between them and every other individual in the room, mentally calculating what would be necessary to incapacitate them should they decide to become hostile, and d) mentally mapping out a course of action should it all go into the crapper.

It's not something they do consciously, it's a reflex. Often times, they don't even think about it. Most people can't even catch them doing it, unless they recognize it.

Parson is like that. Everything being shown to him automatically gets examined for possible mechanics exploits. It's a basic reflex which was probably augmented from his own natural munchkin tendencies as a gamer by the spell which summoned him.

Anton Gaist wrote:Just as long as he isn't contacted by some disembodied "voice" in his book that turns out to be a new species... And as long as he doesn't go Outside and come back with a new Bogroll and Misty all sharing his aiua...

Damn, is it me or did that just make sense?

OK, no it didn't.

It did make sense. However, I think more in question would be who is commanding Parson, and for what reason--in other words, who is the general/admiral/corporal (I forget who it was) who commanded Ender. Is it Erfworld? Who or what is Erfworld? And what are its motives?I doubt, however, that this webcomic is secretly modeling Ender's Game, at least entirely. I mean, who would be Valentine/Peter?

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum